The cap was less than $64m so given that $7.5m already falls under that "7-8 million dollar range" it's probably pretty safe to say that it did so (or exceeded it) when prorated from any previous season.

The point I was trying to make was that even with that one big salary in Chara, the rest of the Bruins pretty much had a cap structure that fit into what I was talking about.

1) Their top players were at cost-effective contracts ( I.e. or as you say, these players significantly out-performed their contracts at the time)

2) As a result of these cost effective contracts on the top end, the Bruins were able to invest heavier into their 3rd and 4th lines. For instance, Chris Kelly was a $3 million dollar 3rd line center. Gregory Campbell was at 1.6 million and was on the 4th line. "Elite" 4th liner Shaw Thornton was also paid north of 1 million.

After 2010-2011, guys like Lucic, Marchand, and most other players on that cup winning team, etc., etc, got raises, but there's no denying as to what their cap structure looked like that year.

For the most part, their top talents were at cost effective contracts, which gave the Bruins more freed up cash to being in higher quality depth players.

So - in both the instance of Chicago and Los Angeles, they, for the most part, have been able to sign their top end talents to long term cost effective cap hits........which has allowed them to strive for greater depth as a result of these contracts.

I promise this to be my absolute last post in this thread unless significant interest ensues. This thread ended up being a lot more "goofy" than I intended it to be, but oh well. Based on my studies, here are the final conclusions that I have:

The way to build a championship team: . Establish a young core consisting of the following: 2 centers, 1 defenseman, 1 goalie. All blue chip with star or superstar potential. Get them to "buy in" to the idea of building a contender......but by doing that, one would have to sign a long term contract at a good cap hit. After making the successful signings, you build your team around this core for years to come. The Los Angeles Kings and Chicago Blackhawks are tremendous examples of this.

One thing you absolutely cannot do, is sign a superstar player(s) to an insanely high contract to the point where you are portraying to said superstar that they are bigger than the team. My studies indicate that the Penguins, Capitals, Ducks, Lightning, Predators, and Wild will most likely not be elite cup contending teams on a consistent basis due to the contracts that they have handed out to Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, Stamkos, Weber, Suter, and Parise. Out of this batch however, the Penguins will have the best chance over these next few years of reaching the cup finals, due to the very weak Eastern Conference. Even if a team does manage to win a cup following this model, one can expect a rebuild very shortly (case in point: Anaheim Ducks after 2007).

Most overrated philosophy: . Building from the "goal out." Although it's obviously necessary to be strong in net and have a strong defensive corps if one is striving to be a cup contender, taking this philosophy to the extreme can hinder you more than help you. Case in point: Nashville Predators. The Minnesota Wild most of this decade also fit that description. Even those few successful teams (I.e. New Jersey: 1995-2003, Dallas during the late 90's) that fit the description of that, had excellent depth at center and solid overall depth up front which complemented their superior defensive and goaltending prowess.

If taken "too literally", building from the goal out will keep you stuck in mediocrity.

Goaltending: . Ideally, you want a superstar goalie locked into a long term contract with an excellent cap hit (see Jonathan Quick). However - if one is forced to make a decision between choosing a superstar/top 3 goalie at an insanely high cap hit, OR, a very-good-but-not-great goalie at a much lower cap hit, it is much better to go with the latter option............with the expectation that the freed up cap space will be used to build a more dangerous team in front.

Good goalie + great team in front > Great goalie with heavy cap hit + decent team in front.

The Chicago Blackhawks in 2010 and 2013 are excellent examples of this. I think we can all agree that their goalies from both those years weren't widely considered top 3 goalies in the league, but were still very very good goalies, at good cap hits, that were good enough to be instrumental in helping their teams win.

Again - if you take the philosophy of "decent goalie + awesome team in front too far", you could end up having a shitty goalie and your team will suffer. Case in point: Philadelphia Flyers.

Defense:. Ideally, you want 1-2 franchise defensemen. Studies of shown that almost all cup winning teams have atleast one. There have been a few rare examples where a team has NOT had a franchise defenseman in their line up (I.e. Carolina Hurricanes 2006.......maybe even the Penguins in 2009 could fall under this category as their current blue chip defensemen weren't as developed at the time), but ALL cup winning teams have a solid defense. With the exception of depth/prowess at center, defensive prowess is the most important factor for a team.

If a team cannot have 1 franchise defensemen (I.e. LA, Boston), or 2 franchise defensemen (I.e. Chicago), then a team MUST have atleast 5-6 defensemen that are Top 4 quality defensemen (I.e. Canucks 2011).

The QUICKEST way for a team to be bad in this league, is to have a sub-par defensive corps.

Forwards:. Center is far and away the most important position. Your 1st line center and 2nd line center are far and away the two most important positions on the team........which contrasts to more common philosophy that a goaltender and/or a franchise defensemen is your most important position.

I *might* even go as far as saying that your 3rd line center is as important as your top winger, but I'm not prepared to state as such at the time (in all likelihood, a 3rd line center would be your 4th most important forward behind your top winger......maybe even 5th).

Anyway folks, that wraps it up. Unless interest picks up, I am pretty much done with this thread and I thank you for your time.

p.s._________Getting back to the topic at hand however, I ran some split-testing on NHL 14' to compare the importance of a 3rd line center vs. a winger for the top line (I called in sick today to run said split tests).

As it turns out, my hypothesis was incorrect. A top line winger is more important than a 3rd line center.........BUT........a 3rd line center should be the team's 5th best forward and 10th best player on the team if a team wants to maximize the advantages of having a superior 3rd line (while at the same time, not stacking up a 3rd line to the point where it 'waters down' your top two lines).

Here is how one should build their team. (First = first player selected and/or first most important position on said team).

* = indication that it does not matter if it's LW or RW or LD or RD. For example - it doesn't matter if your 8th best player (top winger) is a right winger or left winger. The above example is for illustration purposes only.

The Brown Knight wrote:p.s._________Getting back to the topic at hand however, I ran some split-testing on NHL 14' to compare the importance of a 3rd line center vs. a winger for the top line (I called in sick today to run said split tests).

Farhan,you skip work again to work on such drivel and I'll phone McDonalds and let your boss know you're faking illness!! Now get back to your deep fryer

If running or creating a team, don't try and create a pre-determined identity. Simply pick the best players and/or best prospects available at the best cap hit, and then create your strategies/identities, etc. afterwards.

This is one thing that I think absolutely killed a team like Minnesota during the 2000's. They tried to create an identity of being a "trap team", and in effect, scared off a large number of possible free agents. Philadelphia is also falling into the "identity" trap at current IMO. With Philly however, they are forcing a pre-identity of being a "big and tough" team.......which again, can scare off potential "skill" or "finesse" free agents wanting to sign.

Pick the best players available.......identity is created based on that. The Redwings for instance. In 1997, they were considered a good blend of skill and grit. In 2002, they bought a championship. In 2008, they were almost purely a skill team (give or take a few grit guys to keep them balanced).

Chicago in 2010 were a gritty team that was complemented with skill and speed. Chicago in 2013, was a skill team that was completed by grit and speed. Lesson to learn: don't be obsessed in having a team identity. Pick the best players available via free agency, trade, drafting, and be willing to mold the identity into whatever. Coaching strategies then follow suit (and as you can see, you can see why the idea of automatically "trapping" like the Wild did for so many years was ridiculous).

Don't try and be a "skill" team or a "physical" team" or a "Fast" team. Pick the best players available (I.e. via draft and/or free agent signings, and let the team strengths/weaknesses show itself later.

On my NHL 14, I split tested 4 different teams: A "skill" team, a "fast " team, a "physical" team, and a balanced team consisting of god variety. Not surprising, the team with variety was far and away the best. My "fast" team could easily be vu led off the puck, my physical team was slow and took bad penalties, while the skill team could often be out skated and outhit. I know this sounds like an obvious thing, but there are teams in today's NHL that seem obsessed with building one of these 3 types of one dimensional teams ( I.e. the Flyers).

Even a team like Boston that is known for it's physicality, has good skill players, finesse players, and fast players.

What a Championship team looks like:

So a few weeks ago, I established as to what most championship calibre teams look like.

-A championship calibre team should consist of a core, signed at a reasonable cap hit long term, and consisting of two centers, two defenseman, a goalie, and either an elite winger or 3rd line center (using the Chicago and LA model, I think an elite winger would be more important than a 3rd line center as part of one's "core" to build around). Chicago, LA, Pitsburgh, are building variations of this model, but are pretty doing exactly as I described.

A minor change in thought:

-Through experimentation and split testing however, I have also come to the conclusion that you can't take the logic of "reasonable cap hit" to an extreme. In other words, if it means paying guys like Sidney Crosby, Ryan Getzlaf, and Ryan Suter 7.5-8.7 million per year, you do it. A few weeks ago, I would have disagreed with this line of thought (I.e. And in effect, would have been very critical of the Pitsburgh Penguins and Anaheim Duck model).The Minnesota Wild, with their signings of Suter and Parise, are excellent examples.

-Superstar blue liners: A few weeks ago, I was of the opinion that solid depth on defense was an adequate consolation prize/secondary option if a team did not have a superstar blue-liner on defense (I.e. Canuck 2011 model). My opinion on this has now changed. A team should ideally have TWO superstar blue-liners and if that's not possible, should have one (I.e. Doughty with the Kings, Chara with the Bruins, Pietrangelo and Shattenkirk with the Blues). A team can still win without a superstar d-man (I.e. Hurricanes in 06'), but the chances are very slim.

If I was running the Canucks.........or any team for that matter:

If I was running the Canucks, I'd move either Hansen or Burrows for a Center.

I would also be on the look-out for potential franchise players and would offer any draft pick and/or prospect for said player. For example, there are conflicting reports that Claude Giroux MIGHT be available for the right price. I would offer ANY of our prospects and/or draft picks for Giroux.

This past Summer, there were rumors that Kris Letang might have been available due to his contract demands. I'm not sure if this was true, but I would have offered Pitsburgh, Alexander Edler and whatever else that they wanted ( within reason) for Letang. Upon acquiring Letang, give him a lifetime long term deal.

Anyway - that should be it for this thread as far as I go.

It was a interesting experience for me and I feel like I learned a lot. Some of my lessons learned were obvious stuff, but a few minor things that many people might not notice, really came to a head for me.